Discussion of modern fantasy
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Re: Discussion of modern fantasy
At least Wesnothian orcs have the binge-and-purge cycle as an excuse. They have to fight to get resources and kill off the excess population when their current territory can't support them anymore, which happens fairly often because they breed like rabbits. This isn't so far off from the tribe I mentioned in my last post, whose fighting revolves around the abundance of crops and livestock.Frogger5 wrote:All hatred, all wars and attacks are because of a reason. It's a part of their culture is the excuse, but it's not good enough without a reason. Unless there is a reason, it simply can't be real.
It's spelled "definitely", not "definately". "Defiantly" is a different word entirely.
Re: Discussion of modern fantasy
Exactly. And of course, the reason is provided by the campaign writer.
My spritework can be seen here.
Want to play Roll 2 Dodge, or even start your own game?http://rolltododge.freeforums.org/index.php We need you!
Want to play Roll 2 Dodge, or even start your own game?http://rolltododge.freeforums.org/index.php We need you!
Re: Discussion of modern fantasy
Imagine this scenario in a story.
In a cold world where magic is dead- killed, in the First Pained Ravages, by the grand thinkers who worried that magic, too powerful, could be contained away from the workings of mechanical death no more, a lowly commoner of great charisma cements himself up to the top with but his speeches and heart, persuading his country to love him. He then carries out a campaign to slaughter every single member of a subspecies of his race, for no other reason than blind hatred and rage. And all the princes of the world, unknowing of such indignity, unite to crush him and his ken- not to save those who may be murdered, but because they fear the power of his united heartland under him and the threat such a stone of solidarity poses to their own lands.
And thus, the Second Pained Ravages began-
Six long years of suffering for no other point than the blind foolish wisdom of a leader who had enough sight to see far but yet not enough to see far enough.
Insipid brilliance that killed an uncountability of brave men and ravaged civilizations forever, a time of chaos in which great secrets of the past were lost in bomb and fire and new constructs of steel and smoke stood to replace them, heralds of this great war-
The great war, prophesized by the Great Council at the end of the First Pained Ravages-
For though they saw the peace was but a single, short ceasefire, none yet one moved to prevent it, for fear of political reckoning and short-term loss of pride.
The foolishness of the wisest, and the wisdom of one mad fool, all colliding together into a deluge of fire and fury, ended but with the greatest weapon the quantum mages could forge, an endeavor to end all things...
And all this saga unfolded, because one man simply stood up on a platform one day with no purpose but burning hatred in his heart, and a desire to wield a silver tongue to gouge away cathartic scrapes from the malicious block of his darkness.
I hope you recognize that I am speaking of World War II. At the core of it, the war began simply because Hitler, at his bse, felt like it- he was powered by irrational hatred for the other nations, and a desire to expand.
It's not an original story, nor is it a good excuse or reason for such a legend. But it is fact. Sometimes, the most villainous men are simply those who have broken the mold with nothing but their sheer potential for destruction. Heck, it's difficult to even agree on what Hitler's initial motivation was in the first place- whether he was building up his land or tearing down the system.
The world has no real campaign writer, and wars open for the most insipid things- I could tell you stories about how many wars happened in the Period of the Warring Kingdoms of China simply because princes found EXCUSES to kill each other. Heck, they hired entire panels of advisors dedicated solely to finding excuses based on the algorithms of an excruciatingly-formal system of manners between royalty of the time. Their court was based on finding excuses to go to war. It's sad, but it's true- and some of the most involving and dramatic historical tales of China emerged from such petty interaction.
There is no term for drama in any of the equations of the universe.
In a cold world where magic is dead- killed, in the First Pained Ravages, by the grand thinkers who worried that magic, too powerful, could be contained away from the workings of mechanical death no more, a lowly commoner of great charisma cements himself up to the top with but his speeches and heart, persuading his country to love him. He then carries out a campaign to slaughter every single member of a subspecies of his race, for no other reason than blind hatred and rage. And all the princes of the world, unknowing of such indignity, unite to crush him and his ken- not to save those who may be murdered, but because they fear the power of his united heartland under him and the threat such a stone of solidarity poses to their own lands.
And thus, the Second Pained Ravages began-
Six long years of suffering for no other point than the blind foolish wisdom of a leader who had enough sight to see far but yet not enough to see far enough.
Insipid brilliance that killed an uncountability of brave men and ravaged civilizations forever, a time of chaos in which great secrets of the past were lost in bomb and fire and new constructs of steel and smoke stood to replace them, heralds of this great war-
The great war, prophesized by the Great Council at the end of the First Pained Ravages-
For though they saw the peace was but a single, short ceasefire, none yet one moved to prevent it, for fear of political reckoning and short-term loss of pride.
The foolishness of the wisest, and the wisdom of one mad fool, all colliding together into a deluge of fire and fury, ended but with the greatest weapon the quantum mages could forge, an endeavor to end all things...
And all this saga unfolded, because one man simply stood up on a platform one day with no purpose but burning hatred in his heart, and a desire to wield a silver tongue to gouge away cathartic scrapes from the malicious block of his darkness.
I hope you recognize that I am speaking of World War II. At the core of it, the war began simply because Hitler, at his bse, felt like it- he was powered by irrational hatred for the other nations, and a desire to expand.
It's not an original story, nor is it a good excuse or reason for such a legend. But it is fact. Sometimes, the most villainous men are simply those who have broken the mold with nothing but their sheer potential for destruction. Heck, it's difficult to even agree on what Hitler's initial motivation was in the first place- whether he was building up his land or tearing down the system.
The world has no real campaign writer, and wars open for the most insipid things- I could tell you stories about how many wars happened in the Period of the Warring Kingdoms of China simply because princes found EXCUSES to kill each other. Heck, they hired entire panels of advisors dedicated solely to finding excuses based on the algorithms of an excruciatingly-formal system of manners between royalty of the time. Their court was based on finding excuses to go to war. It's sad, but it's true- and some of the most involving and dramatic historical tales of China emerged from such petty interaction.
There is no term for drama in any of the equations of the universe.
Re: Discussion of modern fantasy
There is your reason. His excuse is what he told the German public and government.Zerovirus wrote:He then carries out a campaign to slaughter every single member of a subspecies of his race, for no other reason than blind hatred and rage.
Lets pretend just for a moment that the war is fiction. An author with the fault I just mentioned would say that he fought the war because he wanted land, power and no Jews. They will also mention what hitler told the german public during his war speech.
Quoting this author:
would say that he fought the war because he wanted land, power and no Jews.
This is the purpose, not the reason. This is what the baddie is trying to achieve.
They will also mention what hitler told the german public during his war speech.
This is the excuse.
There is the purpose, and the excuse, but where is the reason? Why does he want all these things done? There is a motivation behind every big decision you make, but some authors fail to deliver that and make the baddie seem more believable.
Purpose
The orcs want plunder.
Excuse
It's a part of their culture
Reason
They feel humans are responsible for their lack of wealth and power, and that they have been robbed of their land and title.
voila! You have a solid believable baddie.
You see, the excuse is really just a pathetic reason. Imagine your arguing with an orc. "Oh yeah?" you say, "so why the hell do you keep plundering our villages then?!"
"... ummm... err... It's a part of our culture idiot!"
Snort* "Pull another one!"
My spritework can be seen here.
Want to play Roll 2 Dodge, or even start your own game?http://rolltododge.freeforums.org/index.php We need you!
Want to play Roll 2 Dodge, or even start your own game?http://rolltododge.freeforums.org/index.php We need you!
-
wayfarer
- Art Contributor
- Posts: 933
- Joined: June 16th, 2005, 7:07 pm
- Location: Following the Steps of Goethe
- Contact:
Re: Discussion of modern fantasy
I recently read War and Peace Leo Tolstoy. On of the most intriguing think about the book was his descriptions of the reasons of the war.
He destroys the image that one man has caused the war it was a collection of accidents, false views, and random occurences, false pride and arrogance.
Would take to long to list them all. But every single of them showed how depresseve the whole thing was.
It was definitily one appeal to the book.
He destroys the image that one man has caused the war it was a collection of accidents, false views, and random occurences, false pride and arrogance.
Would take to long to list them all. But every single of them showed how depresseve the whole thing was.
It was definitily one appeal to the book.
This girl, this boy, They were part of the land. What happens to the places we used to tend?
She's a hard one to trust, And he's a roving ghost. Will you come back, will you come back, Or leave me alone?
-Ghost Fields
She's a hard one to trust, And he's a roving ghost. Will you come back, will you come back, Or leave me alone?
-Ghost Fields
Re: Discussion of modern fantasy
You know what, you may have just hit the jackpot for making a fictional war more believable. 
My spritework can be seen here.
Want to play Roll 2 Dodge, or even start your own game?http://rolltododge.freeforums.org/index.php We need you!
Want to play Roll 2 Dodge, or even start your own game?http://rolltododge.freeforums.org/index.php We need you!
Re: Discussion of modern fantasy
For reference, I took the orc example mostly because of how common it is in the story telling of this game. There are many more examples of stories where race is used as a silly excuse for something vital.
Honestly, you took the worst example possible though to defend your point. Just look at this nice wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_world_war_2 .
Besides, that's all irrelevant. If I read a book where a war started just because "the king is mad and the people are stupid", I'll consider it a bad book. After all, I still expect the writer to tell more about how the king got mad, how the heck he managed to convince all the other people (the people do demand an excuse) and why none has tried stopping him. (except when they're orcs, in that case it's perfectly fine!)
Also, wikipedia has a lot of those "causes of war X" pages, they're quite interesting.
Goldwin strikes again!I hope you recognize that I am speaking of World War II. At the core of it, the war began simply because Hitler, at his bse, felt like it- he was powered by irrational hatred for the other nations, and a desire to expand.
Honestly, you took the worst example possible though to defend your point. Just look at this nice wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_world_war_2 .
Besides, that's all irrelevant. If I read a book where a war started just because "the king is mad and the people are stupid", I'll consider it a bad book. After all, I still expect the writer to tell more about how the king got mad, how the heck he managed to convince all the other people (the people do demand an excuse) and why none has tried stopping him. (except when they're orcs, in that case it's perfectly fine!)
Also, wikipedia has a lot of those "causes of war X" pages, they're quite interesting.
Re: Discussion of modern fantasy
Insanity needs a reason and that reason needs to be in the story?After all, I still expect the writer to tell more about how the king got mad, how the heck he managed to convince all the other people (the people do demand an excuse) and why none has tried stopping him. (except when they're orcs, in that case it's perfectly fine!)
Keep in mind who is actually doing the fighting. For example, in middle age Europe until the hundred year war it was mostly the knights and whomever they could convince to follow them. There were many among them who had land already and could be concerned about managing it but there were just as many whom had very little in the way of anything and generally no skills to contribute beyond those of war. The caste as a whole was raised to fight and for many being useful in war was the source of their livelyhood. The king dosn't need to convince 'all the other people' to support his efforts he only needs the support of those who have the power to contribute and I imagine it would be fairly easy to get most of the landless knights (as battle gives oppertunity for plunder, fame can earn one land or a position as a retainer, and the alternative is to live similarly to a bandit) and frequently not all that hard to convince the knights with land either. So yes, it is quite plausable that one insane ruler could set a war into motion with out any justification at all.
Now the dynamics are different when the bulk of the army is coming from the general populace but many of the same effects are there. People who have no job other than fighting tend to not have anything to support themselves with unless they fight and a warrior caste is not necessary for this to happen. It has never seemed implausable to me that the very nature of the orcish race would create cultures like are typically shown (though it may be the other way around, people looked at tolkiens orcs and asked what would be necessary for that to work).
If you had a race that produced people much faster than humans but which ate about the same amount without being particuarly better at feeding them (or even worse in many worlds) combined with (since you do not like war is appart of their culture, let us try has a culture which glorifies warriors and physical strength above all else) it does not seem implausable that all the 'excess' people would become essentially unemployed during a state of chronic famine. Not good prospects of anything unless they can prove themselves in battle to the net result that you could periodically send off masses of them to attack whatever is convenient for pretty much no reason other than to either get rid of them or get some booty to make up for having to support them. As you have more than enough people to actually run the society even after you kill most of your people off it isn't even particuarly harmful to the nation (leaves you more vulnerable to attack perhaps). At that point, attacking pretty much becomes a reason unto itself.
As a side note, I remember once reading a book about the Battle of Hastings and it was speaking on the subject of Sir William of Normandy. One of the things that it remarked was that he was good at keeping his barons fighting those of other dukes instead of each other which was remarkable at the time.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
Re: Discussion of modern fantasy
Exactly!
You gave reasons why people (and orcs alike) would go to war without any reason. That's kinda a paradox, but it actually fits with the point I'm making so that's fine.
First of all, it's allways essential to make sure there isn't too much false information spreading around, so here I present a link to another useful wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crus ... oriography . Either way, I doubt the rest of this forums likes history tales as much as I do, so I'll go back to the topic at hand: why writers should give reasoning for a war.
Anyway, recap of the above disucssion:
Me: If I read a book where a war started just because "the king is mad and the people are stupid", I'll consider it a bad book.
You: But that'd actually be possible because [insert several reasons, reference to middle age Europe and thoughts about the knights here]
My response is now: I wish the writer would give an explanation like the one you just invented.
Other argument:
Me: you'll have a hard time replacing "the stereotypical orcs that constantly attack nearby human settlements" with a human civilisation unless you created a much more interesting theory about it, unless you invent a plausible reasoning for why one civilisation attacks the other besides "one of them happens to be orc".
You: gives a lot of reasoning why it makes sense for orcs to be agressive (based on implied other characteristics of them like higher birth rate and culture)
My reaction: again, you're reasoning you just give is more interesting and realistic than the ones given in many fantasy works (books, films, comics). Removing the race aspect wouldn't break the book (as much) if the writer had taken the effort to write what you just did instead of just assuming it isn't worth noting why orcs go to war.
Once again, a lot of people prefer books where the focus in on the hero doing epic battles and don't care about the motives of the hero, the king or anyone for that matter (many books even forgot to explain the reasons of the villain). Other people expect background story. Again, I simply came to the conclusion that I tend to prefer human only sagas and in this thread I've postponed a little theory about why I would think something that crazy. I don't want to convince other people that every book should explain every single detail of every war, I only want to explain why I tend to dislike books with a lot of emphasis on race.
Other random thoughts worth mentioning:
- It can be fine to not give any explanation about a war in a lot of cases as well (ie. you can say "1000 years ago there was a big war between the French and the English" without saying what caused it), but if it's a vital part of the story it should be noted.
- Having to include a reasoning has the nice side effects of forcing to writer to be a bit more realistic (ie. only a few knights go on a crusade instead of a whole army) and to make the story more convincing (it could have happened).
- Too much background story can hurt a book as well of course. Especially if presented in a boring matter (do not start a book with 2 chapters only containing history/culture/geography please). However, letting your characters talk a bit against each other about things like their culture and motivation between 2 fights is an excellent way to both give essential background information (like the casus belli) and show the relationship between those characters.
You gave reasons why people (and orcs alike) would go to war without any reason. That's kinda a paradox, but it actually fits with the point I'm making so that's fine.
First of all, it's allways essential to make sure there isn't too much false information spreading around, so here I present a link to another useful wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crus ... oriography . Either way, I doubt the rest of this forums likes history tales as much as I do, so I'll go back to the topic at hand: why writers should give reasoning for a war.
Anyway, recap of the above disucssion:
Me: If I read a book where a war started just because "the king is mad and the people are stupid", I'll consider it a bad book.
You: But that'd actually be possible because [insert several reasons, reference to middle age Europe and thoughts about the knights here]
My response is now: I wish the writer would give an explanation like the one you just invented.
Other argument:
Me: you'll have a hard time replacing "the stereotypical orcs that constantly attack nearby human settlements" with a human civilisation unless you created a much more interesting theory about it, unless you invent a plausible reasoning for why one civilisation attacks the other besides "one of them happens to be orc".
You: gives a lot of reasoning why it makes sense for orcs to be agressive (based on implied other characteristics of them like higher birth rate and culture)
My reaction: again, you're reasoning you just give is more interesting and realistic than the ones given in many fantasy works (books, films, comics). Removing the race aspect wouldn't break the book (as much) if the writer had taken the effort to write what you just did instead of just assuming it isn't worth noting why orcs go to war.
Once again, a lot of people prefer books where the focus in on the hero doing epic battles and don't care about the motives of the hero, the king or anyone for that matter (many books even forgot to explain the reasons of the villain). Other people expect background story. Again, I simply came to the conclusion that I tend to prefer human only sagas and in this thread I've postponed a little theory about why I would think something that crazy. I don't want to convince other people that every book should explain every single detail of every war, I only want to explain why I tend to dislike books with a lot of emphasis on race.
Other random thoughts worth mentioning:
- It can be fine to not give any explanation about a war in a lot of cases as well (ie. you can say "1000 years ago there was a big war between the French and the English" without saying what caused it), but if it's a vital part of the story it should be noted.
- Having to include a reasoning has the nice side effects of forcing to writer to be a bit more realistic (ie. only a few knights go on a crusade instead of a whole army) and to make the story more convincing (it could have happened).
- Too much background story can hurt a book as well of course. Especially if presented in a boring matter (do not start a book with 2 chapters only containing history/culture/geography please). However, letting your characters talk a bit against each other about things like their culture and motivation between 2 fights is an excellent way to both give essential background information (like the casus belli) and show the relationship between those characters.
Re: Discussion of modern fantasy
I suppose what I am really saying is that I have not run into many fantasy games or books where I've been bothered by the motives of the people attacking because my mind will fill that information in if the game/book dosn't. There have been so many systems that have worked that one can be applied to almost any situation and when playing with fantasy races you can even make your own. Even in most wesnoth campaigns it does not bother me a whole lot with one major exception that comes up again and again. The exception is the 'I'm just walking through this part of the world and the locals are not willing to let me through excuse for a fight.' It makes little sense to me that elves would think that it is more worthwhile to fight the large veteren dwarf army that wants to get through their woods than to let them through as I cannot see how the later could be more harmful unless there is something else involved. But on the other hand it's easy to fill in why orcs would be attacking someone because it's already been done for me. Now the fact that there is a standard answer that can be applied to just about any offense (infact orcs may be one of the few cases where going on the offense against a stronger faction makes a certain amount of sense as long as you can convince the grunts to go along with it) does not stop the possibility that there are different or more interesting reasons but it does make it so that I have very little problem with the idea of them attacking for no given reason. Same general thing if there are no orcs, it is usually not hard for me to fill in why someone is attacking and I will do so automatically and adjust for new information.
I don't know what books/games you're talking about that give you this problem but I find that most authors in the fantasy I find do a decent job of handleing the necessary logistics (of course, part of this may just be my perception for as I mentioned, my mind will fill in unexplained details with what seems plausable to me).
I don't know what books/games you're talking about that give you this problem but I find that most authors in the fantasy I find do a decent job of handleing the necessary logistics (of course, part of this may just be my perception for as I mentioned, my mind will fill in unexplained details with what seems plausable to me).
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
Re: Discussion of modern fantasy
Then i am reading the wrong books. From some of these comments I have read, I honestly think that my library has the crappest fantasy books written. 
So, orcs could go to war without any reason. But honestly, thats pathetic. It really is. Orcs going to war for no apparent reason. How boring would that be? Even if you add several epic battles and heroic scenes, there is simply no depth to the story. Stuff like that should be made into movies for action lovers to watch. (I've got nothing against action lovers partially being one myself)
So, orcs could go to war without any reason. But honestly, thats pathetic. It really is. Orcs going to war for no apparent reason. How boring would that be? Even if you add several epic battles and heroic scenes, there is simply no depth to the story. Stuff like that should be made into movies for action lovers to watch. (I've got nothing against action lovers partially being one myself)
My spritework can be seen here.
Want to play Roll 2 Dodge, or even start your own game?http://rolltododge.freeforums.org/index.php We need you!
Want to play Roll 2 Dodge, or even start your own game?http://rolltododge.freeforums.org/index.php We need you!
Re: Discussion of modern fantasy
Like most things, it's only pathetic if it is used poorly.
It may not be terribly interesting to have a story that runs on the lines of 'orcs randomly attack and our heros fight them off' (though this can still be fun if done well) but that is hardly the only use for the element. Having it be an excuse to have random action scenes is a bit more useful though still not great story all by itself (make sure the action scene has a purpose) (though it's great for wesnoth campaigns).
On the other hand, orcs do make it so that it is easy to have a constant threat in the world. Having a force that constantly generates hordes or reckless, bloodthirsty, and easily led marauders can be used to justify everyone else being more militant. They can make it so that even people who live in well armed and natled nations that can easilly fend off invaders cannot 'feel safe' as it makes a certain amount of sense that they'd attack even stronger parties if there are no other targets. They are great material to provide evil overlords or anyone else who is rich with lots of minions. They can be used to make areas risky to travel through or just be used as a general threat/factor in world building. Now you can do just about everything listed with humans however using orcs has a few advantages over doing the same thing with humans. Humans can easily be evil cannon fodder but if you use orcs you can essentially have a race that is custom designed for the purpose and thus solve logistical issues (things like how these people don't seem to be kept down by war fatigue for very long and such). It is convenient to many stories to have the ability to generate this menace without too much trouble.
Now you do not have to limit orcs to being evil cannon fodder just because they are very good at it. You could experiment with different orc cultures all based on the same racial traits to give it a bit more depth. For example, rather than having nomadic raiders like wesnoth has, you could have an orc nation that is very much into farming but still needs to constantly expand/fight so that they have enough land to feed themselves) or you could have orcs that are very much into cannibalism and are not as much of a threat to other nations (as other orcs might be) because they are too busy fighting each other, or you could have the heros hire them as mercenaries and have them be a horde of 'good' cannon fodder if you want as long as you can portray it in a way that works.
You might (as an author or reader) have a problem with the idea of a race that is designed explicitly so that they are logical cannon fodder. If so then how orcs are commonly used will probably always be a problem to you. It does not bother me because I figure if you're going to use faceless hordes you might as well use ones that are good at it. I think humans make fine faceless hordes as well but I do not think that being human inherently makes them more interesting, a better choice, or even less cliche a world element than using orcs. It depends on application.
I generally do not have a problem with orcs being simply the convenient cannon fodder in games because games can benefit from such much more than they benefit from having a decent story. In Wesnoth you constantly need something to fight and orcs happen to be something that it makes sense that you would be fighting often (though perhaps not as often as you end up fighting them). Campaign writers can still write them to be more interesting if they feel like it but until this inclination comes up they are a convenient source of encounters (which is essentially what wesnoth is about as a game) and thus a valuable addition to the gameworld. Same general idea applies to stories in my opinion. If you need them to be simple minions or whatever they do that great, if you want/need something more interesting there's nothing stopping you.
I would however say that it makes more sense to use orcs in a game than it does in the story (as opposed to using warlike humans) because using a different race gives you a better justification for using different gameplay (for example hill movement, radically different units, ect) and many of the logistical issues that use of orcs might solve probably don't need to be brought up in most stories.
It may not be terribly interesting to have a story that runs on the lines of 'orcs randomly attack and our heros fight them off' (though this can still be fun if done well) but that is hardly the only use for the element. Having it be an excuse to have random action scenes is a bit more useful though still not great story all by itself (make sure the action scene has a purpose) (though it's great for wesnoth campaigns).
On the other hand, orcs do make it so that it is easy to have a constant threat in the world. Having a force that constantly generates hordes or reckless, bloodthirsty, and easily led marauders can be used to justify everyone else being more militant. They can make it so that even people who live in well armed and natled nations that can easilly fend off invaders cannot 'feel safe' as it makes a certain amount of sense that they'd attack even stronger parties if there are no other targets. They are great material to provide evil overlords or anyone else who is rich with lots of minions. They can be used to make areas risky to travel through or just be used as a general threat/factor in world building. Now you can do just about everything listed with humans however using orcs has a few advantages over doing the same thing with humans. Humans can easily be evil cannon fodder but if you use orcs you can essentially have a race that is custom designed for the purpose and thus solve logistical issues (things like how these people don't seem to be kept down by war fatigue for very long and such). It is convenient to many stories to have the ability to generate this menace without too much trouble.
Now you do not have to limit orcs to being evil cannon fodder just because they are very good at it. You could experiment with different orc cultures all based on the same racial traits to give it a bit more depth. For example, rather than having nomadic raiders like wesnoth has, you could have an orc nation that is very much into farming but still needs to constantly expand/fight so that they have enough land to feed themselves) or you could have orcs that are very much into cannibalism and are not as much of a threat to other nations (as other orcs might be) because they are too busy fighting each other, or you could have the heros hire them as mercenaries and have them be a horde of 'good' cannon fodder if you want as long as you can portray it in a way that works.
You might (as an author or reader) have a problem with the idea of a race that is designed explicitly so that they are logical cannon fodder. If so then how orcs are commonly used will probably always be a problem to you. It does not bother me because I figure if you're going to use faceless hordes you might as well use ones that are good at it. I think humans make fine faceless hordes as well but I do not think that being human inherently makes them more interesting, a better choice, or even less cliche a world element than using orcs. It depends on application.
I generally do not have a problem with orcs being simply the convenient cannon fodder in games because games can benefit from such much more than they benefit from having a decent story. In Wesnoth you constantly need something to fight and orcs happen to be something that it makes sense that you would be fighting often (though perhaps not as often as you end up fighting them). Campaign writers can still write them to be more interesting if they feel like it but until this inclination comes up they are a convenient source of encounters (which is essentially what wesnoth is about as a game) and thus a valuable addition to the gameworld. Same general idea applies to stories in my opinion. If you need them to be simple minions or whatever they do that great, if you want/need something more interesting there's nothing stopping you.
I would however say that it makes more sense to use orcs in a game than it does in the story (as opposed to using warlike humans) because using a different race gives you a better justification for using different gameplay (for example hill movement, radically different units, ect) and many of the logistical issues that use of orcs might solve probably don't need to be brought up in most stories.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
Re: Discussion of modern fantasy
I completely agree.
My spritework can be seen here.
Want to play Roll 2 Dodge, or even start your own game?http://rolltododge.freeforums.org/index.php We need you!
Want to play Roll 2 Dodge, or even start your own game?http://rolltododge.freeforums.org/index.php We need you!
-
Gwynnedrion
- Posts: 136
- Joined: February 26th, 2010, 8:42 pm
Re: Discussion of modern fantasy
I don't quite remember the title of the book, its been a while since I read it but it was a fantasy novel in which the elves were cannibals who fed of the flesh of their dead enemies... I found it to be mindblowing compared to the lute playing, tree hugging gentle pointy ears as seen in so many books and movies.
”Rise, adept, and tell me about the enemy.”
You are a Horseman: you charge ahead without thinking of the consequences.(80%)
You are a Horseman: you charge ahead without thinking of the consequences.(80%)
Re: Discussion of modern fantasy
I know several people have already virtualy blacklisted the Eragon books, but I actually really enjoy them. They were a lot more realistic then the normal "random person saves the world and never dies" books.
Likes:
•The Magic System - much more realistic. It didn't come with any wacky hippy/metaphysical explanations, just a clear-cut one that made sense. Also, instead of Eragon become ultra-super powerful overnight, it took him a while.
•Society - The elves', dwarves', and Urgals' (equivalent of orcs) societies were nicely explained. Several factors were included: longevity (the immortals were extremely reserved and courteous, because grudges could be held for centuries), environment, politics, and such. Also, the elves weren't always immortal, getting rid of that annoying stereotype.
•Politics - Paolini squeezed politics carefully into the mix, very much complicating things but in a way that actually made sense and added into the story.
Dislikes:
•Mr. Miyagi - Training sequences took too long (but yet added realism), and Eragon was a wimp for most of the first two books.
•Politics - They added to the storyline, but they also slowed things down in red tape, so love/hate relationship.
•Secrets - Obviously, everything could not be revealed immediately, but it seemed everyone in the book was lying/keeping a dreadfully important secret that would turn the tide of the war, and only revealed it when it was already too late, it was in the midst of a battle, or someone was dying.
•Tangents - Several times Paolini goes on tangents JUST when you want to reach the action, such as more politics, a moral quandary (Eragon likes to save kittens from trees and such), or some pointless trek walking across half the continent because someone had to come along without a horse so they couldn't ride the
Besides these (mostly minor) dislikes, I really liked the books and am looking forward to the fourth.
I also enjoy the Artemis Fowl series, if it is more comedic and not so story-heavy.
Likes:
•Storyline - There aren't any apologies or long histories, the fairies just exist and that's that. It has a solid foundation (explained in the books) so I don't really care for any longer explanations. It just dives into the book as it is.
•Comedy - Unlike the other fantasy books, this one is more humorous, which I really like. Some strange humor in there, though.
•Plots - The book normally revolves around this enormous quandary which can only be solved by magic and Artemis Fowl. A simple premise, but the way it is solved is incredibly complex, but seems so simple once it is carried out.
No dislikes right now because I am tired of writing this post
Likes:
•The Magic System - much more realistic. It didn't come with any wacky hippy/metaphysical explanations, just a clear-cut one that made sense. Also, instead of Eragon become ultra-super powerful overnight, it took him a while.
•Society - The elves', dwarves', and Urgals' (equivalent of orcs) societies were nicely explained. Several factors were included: longevity (the immortals were extremely reserved and courteous, because grudges could be held for centuries), environment, politics, and such. Also, the elves weren't always immortal, getting rid of that annoying stereotype.
•Politics - Paolini squeezed politics carefully into the mix, very much complicating things but in a way that actually made sense and added into the story.
Dislikes:
•Mr. Miyagi - Training sequences took too long (but yet added realism), and Eragon was a wimp for most of the first two books.
•Politics - They added to the storyline, but they also slowed things down in red tape, so love/hate relationship.
•Secrets - Obviously, everything could not be revealed immediately, but it seemed everyone in the book was lying/keeping a dreadfully important secret that would turn the tide of the war, and only revealed it when it was already too late, it was in the midst of a battle, or someone was dying.
•Tangents - Several times Paolini goes on tangents JUST when you want to reach the action, such as more politics, a moral quandary (Eragon likes to save kittens from trees and such), or some pointless trek walking across half the continent because someone had to come along without a horse so they couldn't ride the
Spoiler:
I also enjoy the Artemis Fowl series, if it is more comedic and not so story-heavy.
Likes:
•Storyline - There aren't any apologies or long histories, the fairies just exist and that's that. It has a solid foundation (explained in the books) so I don't really care for any longer explanations. It just dives into the book as it is.
•Comedy - Unlike the other fantasy books, this one is more humorous, which I really like. Some strange humor in there, though.
•Plots - The book normally revolves around this enormous quandary which can only be solved by magic and Artemis Fowl. A simple premise, but the way it is solved is incredibly complex, but seems so simple once it is carried out.
No dislikes right now because I am tired of writing this post